French satirical magazine "Charlie Hebdo" has published pictures of the prophet Mohamed as a cartoon character in its latest issue, the magazine also stated that the prophet was the editor in chief for that particular issue, the result is the petrol bombing and destruction of the magazines offices in Paris.

It is strictly forbidden in Islam for anyone to make or create images of the prophet Mohamed, to do so is regarded by Muslims to be disrespectful and is an insult, therefore one has to ask - why ?, why did this magazine feel it necessary to knowingly and deliberately upset a section of French society. ?

Personaly I am a none believer, I am from a Christian background, and though I will frequently criticise Islam, the Catholic Church, Jewish hard liners and American bible bashers, I would not go so far as to purposely disrespect or poke fun at someone elses beliefs, this is called tolerance.

I am glad we live in the United Kingdom where the preaching or publishing or promotion of religious hatred and intolerance is forbiden by law - in some nations you are allowed to preach hatred and hide behind the wall called "freedom of speech", in some nations there is no hiding place.

We have seen the reactions of some Muslims before when this has happened, it begs the question - was this magazine looking for publicity knowing they would attract attention, perhaps their sales figures were down.

I personally believe that all my beliefs of religions whichever they are, christianity, catholic, Islam,Muslim or whatever, will only be considered as blasphemous. As Shirina says "reality" good for you love, as that is the way I think also. All these religions enter a different country, and try to force their religion upon the people who have been living there for generations. WHY?because we do not go to their countries and try to force atheism on to them do we.? Yes I know it's the freedom of rights act etc, if we have it here they should have it in their country should they not?

stu wrote:WHY?because we do not go to their countries and try to force atheism on to them do we.?

In the US, we don't worry about foreigners forcing their religion on us too much. Instead, we have the opposite problem: Domestic Christians trying to force their religion on their fellow non-believing Americans.

I just wrote a letter to the local newspaper in response to the constant whining from Christians about how their rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth opposition to homosexuality wasn't hatred or bigotry but rather how they're just adhering to the Bible. One such idiot even had the audacity to quote from Leviticus 20:13.

What I said in response is that, yes, Leviticus 20:13 does condemn homosexuality, but just three verses earlier, Leviticus 20:10 condemns adultery. So why is it, then, that Christians have never launched a holy crusade about adulterers or spent millions trying to curtail the rights of adulterers? After all, adulterers can marry, remarry, and remarry again if they so choose. In fact, people who beat their spouse or even those who have murdered a previous spouse are allowed to marry and remarry. That says Christian morality regards homosexuality as being worse than assault and murder. How can any rational person not suspect Christianity of hatred and bigotry when it so single-mindedly attacks one specific demographic group based on the Bible whereas other folks such as witches, non-Christians, adulterers, those who work on the Sabbath, non-virgin brides, and rebellious children - all of whom are condemned to death - are allowed to do as they please.

But more importantly, I said that the polling data indicates that 30 to 35 million Americans consider themselves non-religious. That means there are quite a few people who simply don't care what the Bible says and thus we resent it when Christians claim that everyone, by force of law, must adhere to some primitive ancient religious code that the Christians themselves don't have the cajones to follow completely. After all, "Who so ever shall lie with a man as he would a woman is an abomination in the eyes of the Lord and shall surely be put to death." If the first part is true, why not the second? It's bad enough when Christians cherry pick verses out of the OT upon which to base civil law, but it is utterly pathetic when Christians cherry pick parts and pieces of a particular verse in order to justify preconceived hatred, bigotry, and prejudice.

And so atheists and even those of other faiths have to be on constant guard against these theocratic fascists who would impose their particular brand of tyranny onto the rest of us regardless of what we believe.

IF, and it is a big " if ", religion was of some use in harsher times then it is now past its sell by date, now it obstructs universal rights and reason. 9/11 acted like a catalyst for all atheists and rationalists to say enough is enough, we cannot just sit back and let the lunatics run the asylum and hope for the best.

The world is changing at a frightening pace, and the population has exploded to 7 billion mouths to feed, unless we start using our evolved survival brains pretty soon we will create a hell on earth.

Very true both Heretic and Tosh, Heretic you are certainly right in the respect that they would not allow atheists that much space at all would they? Tosh you state that we should use our "evolved" brains, but that is the thing that most of the nutters say does not exist,and that is half the problem at least.

The above is an anachronism before any other consideration, JC could not have had a conversation with Mohammed, pbuh. Almost six hundred years separated their lives on Earth. Many religious teachings require some suspension of disbelief, but that's a step too far for some of us, rather blunting the message.

The freedom to express ones belief or ideas should be a right of everyone or just the ideas etc; of a certain group would be allowed.

To use your right for abuse of others is wrong but at times eccential to stop the first abuser from going further.

You can always give an abuser a put down because they are usually soft in the head and cannot understand the relevance of any subject under dispute and resort to silly remarks that have nothing whatsoever to do with the subject.

Far better to reason with reasonable people, however, they are hard to find.

"The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

oftenwrong wrote:"The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

—Catechism of the Catholic Church

Got any cartoons for that, Dan?

Why do you need a cartoon? I thought that your statement from the catechism was hysterically funny all on its own. Is catechism a short form for stand up comedy routine?

oftenwrong wrote:Harmless question: Are you two "in a relationship" as they say now?

Is this what you do when your arguments are weak you find people get tired of your pointless sniping? If this is the best you can come up with, gratuitous and snide asides, I really would not bother. Far from being clever it was merely ignorant and asinine.

The whole idea of two people in a relationship working together on a subject does not give a true picture and new ideas are what should be the point in attempting to come to a sound conclusion, there is no point in everyone having the same opinion and debunking the only one with the truth.

polyglide wrote:The whole idea of two people in a relationship working together on a subject does not give a true picture and new ideas are what should be the point in attempting to come to a sound conclusion, there is no point in everyone having the same opinion and debunking the only one with the truth.

It seems to me that if you are the only one with 'the truth' as you imply then your command of communication skills are woefully inadequate and may need an upgrade or possibly your logic skills.

The fact is PolyGlide that nobody here is scared of truth, we hanker after it everywhere we can find it. If what you say is finding it hard to find a place to park I suspect it is either down to your driving skills or the model of car you drive.

Freedom of expression should not include the right to exempt a whole group of people, from the laws of the country in which they choose to reside. No historic figure should be quoted as being above the law of the land. Too many Muslim girls are getting murdered by their families when it should have been made clear in the first place that the UK laws are there to protect them, and that parents do not own their daughters to sell as and when they choose.

methought wrote:Freedom of expression should not include the right to exempt a whole group of people, from the laws of the country ...

The 'special case' plea. Very popular with religious groups. If you try and say 'no' then they point to a different religious group and say 'Well you made them a special case'.

This came centre stage some 40 years ago when the government made a serious error of judgement. A law was introduced to enforce the wearing of crash helmets on motorcycles (1973 & 1976). Sensible H&S precaution. During the lead up to the enactment there was a vociferous campaign by Sikhs to be exempted from the legislation. They are similarly exempted from wearing safety helmets (1986 I think).

I would have taken the view that wearing a Turban is not an alternative to wearing a crash helmet and the choice is up to the Sikh individual... wear a Turban and not ride a motorbike or wear a crash helmet. But no... it was decided to make an exemption on the grounds of religion. It set a precedent from which we have been unable to untangle ourselves ever since.